To: "But, why didn't we trade down?" people

[JohnC]

Donahoe's best draft was his first when he traded down to pick Clements and acquire additional picks. With a little creativity and energy it can be done. I'm not sure our front office has those necessary attributes? On the other hand they might.

Edited January 15, 2011 by JohnC

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Of course in hind sight that is easy to say.

 

But the rebuttal to that is the Bills ( or any other team) should have traded up if any team selected a player prior to them who excelled more than expected. There also in no guarantee that with the pick they trade down to doesn't become a bust (See John McCargo).

 

There also is what I'd consider one other major flaw in your arguement. If in the Mike Williams example you give, the Bill's had traded down, but got poor value in return, there is no positive side. Yes they would have been media & message board bashing as you mentioned. But you can't even three or four years later argue, well see Mike Willimas was a bust anyway becasue if you trade down there never was a Mike Williams pick by the Bill's. Who's to know who we really would have picked. Same with Spiller. Who was the guy last year at #9 everyone was hoping the Bill's would have picked, can't recall anymore?? But i they had traded down, you have no idea who they would have selected.

 

So tough to make the argument that even trading down was better as the player they selected wasn't any good anyway.

 

 

the flaw in your argument is that you consider the value chart as gospel.

 

 

the chart was developed by Jimmy Johnson as a way to standardize value in order to facilitate trades on draft day.

 

However, it was created before the top 5 picks became so expensive as to be an albatross to the team making the selection.

 

Any team with the guts to stick to its decision and take the heat from the media would be wise to trade down and take significantly less than the chart value if the players available are not true playmakers in their system. For example, the Bills should have taken basically anything of value to move down from the 4th slot the year they took Mike Williams because the cost of the busted pick hurt far greater than the media backlash from getting less than some perceived fantasy value.

 

Last year, the Bills should have taken what they could get and traded down to some other delusion team who thought Spiller was the next coming of Barry Sanders. The Bills would have improved themselves by getting a 2nd player, both of which would have produced more than Spiller did - for less money.

 

 

 

 

[TPS]

Hey, we're football fans; it's always fun to speculate. Of course you need a dance partner. A trade down will only happen if 1) there is no one the Bills covet at #3; and 2) someone else does (covet a player).

 

A speculative scenario: Fairley and Bowers go 1 and 2, and Bills prefer a front 7 D player; Cleveland covets Green; teams swap picks and Bills get Cleveland's 2nd + a later round pick (whatever adds up). Bills get Dareus or Quinn. Who knows? It's snowing outside, the Bills are done, and I'm procrastinating...

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Absolutely correct. That's kind of trhe main point of this entire thread. Regardless of whether you feel SD or NY got a good deal in the trade, the Chargers only moved down 4 spots and got many picks in return. A team say selecting 15th in that draft would not have had enough picks to give up to move up that far regardless of how much they were willing to give up.

 

It's no different than when people want to buy something, Sometimes you fall in love with something and pay more than you should. Maybe there's a house in a location you just love, the house should go for $200,000, but you just have to have it. The owner isn't even trying to sell the place. But you come along and offer him $400,000 for it so he takes the deal, You way overpaid, but you don't care. Well that only works IF you have toe $400,000. If all you have is $200,000 and can't offer up anything of value to close the gap, you're out of luck.

 

The one way the Bill's could accomplish trading down further is through multiple trades. They trade the #3 down to maybe #7 picking up a 1st, 2nd and 3rd. They they trade the 7th overall down to say #15, and pick up another 2nd and maybe a 6th. So overall the Bills, end up with one 1st rounder @ #15, three #2's including their own, two #3s including their own, and two #6s including their own That would yield six first three round picks. Could it be done, maybe, but likely the Bill's would have to take something less than fair value in one of the trades.

 

Personally would I make those trades if I could even iof only receiving less than what is preceived as fair value for the extra picks, YES!

 

But there still has to be someone offering close the value in return for it to happen.

 

Another thing I see on this board, is people going crazy over what the Giants gave up to get Eli Manning. So if they can do it, with San Diego, why can't we?

[Trader]

FACT: You live in fantasyland, where teams are willing to give up all of this year's draft, and all but #1 of next year's, to trade up from 15-17 to #3.

 

FACT: You are the very type of poster this thread was designed to expose. Since you live in fantasyland, you believe that trading down to 15-17 is not only possible, but likely! And you will start moronic threads claiming that you "know" it could have been done.

 

 

This is the false premise the "trade down" tweet/story is based on: the assertion that another team would have overpaid for us to trade down, and that we didn't take the deal. How can you say that? What proof do you have?

 

The problem is: we never hear what the deal actually was. Or, we never hear both sides confirm what the deal actually was.

 

Instead we are left with moronic: "The Skins were willing to trade up to Buffalo's #3, and give away their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, next year's 3rd, and Albert Haynesworth...really!" stories that have no possible way of being accurate, never mind no way to confirm.

 

Then, some dolt links the story and much time is wasting debating a useless assertion based on a false premise.

 

But ... butt...butt New England trades down a lot. Their roster is better than ours. Is it possible that the Bills do not try very hard? Is New England that much smarter or are they just lucky to get more calls from other teams than we do?

Edited January 15, 2011 by Trader

[Sisyphean Bills]

FACT: You live in fantasyland ...

 

This is the false premise the "trade down" tweet/story is based on: the assertion that another team would have overpaid for us to trade down, and that we didn't take the deal. How can you say that? What proof do you have?

 

Then, some dolt links the story and much time is wasting debating a useless assertion based on a false premise.

Speaking of fantasies, the negative premise is that the trade did NOT happen. Whether you chose to start threads to argue that good trades are never possible or that good trades are always possible, the argument is equally invalid with no other evidence than "the trade did NOT take place."

 

Linking or reporting information, such as a reporter asking someone directly and the answer that comes out of their mouth, is actually not a negative premise or a fantasy. There is some degree of bashing, but not every word about the Bills dealings in the media is unsupported, baseless bashing simply because fans don't want it to be true.

[BB2004]

Every year since 2005, for reasons passing understanding, we have to endure misguided posts telling us that we could have traded down. Perhaps this thread will put an end to that. "But...but...but why didn't we trade down?" The answer is: it takes 2 sides to make a trade. Don't be suckered by the usual suspects with their usual, impossible-to-confirm, "stories".

 

Consider: (using this draft chart) Assume the Cardinals are batshit crazy about Peterson, CB, LSU or Newton, QB, Auburn, etc. and they want him at #3, because they don't think he will make it to 5. That alone costs them this year's 1st and 2nd(and maybe we give them our 5th). 2 Spots? Expensive, huh? One hopes expensive enough even for the "trade down"/"Buddy Nix(or insert GM here) sucks no matter what" bots to see reason.

 

Speaking of morons, how about a more likely candidate for this lunacy: Redskins @ 10. The Skins could want to move up for the QB, DT, DE, CB, and even LB positions. But what will it cost them? This year's 1st, 2nd, 3rd and next year's 3rd(trading their entire draft this year doesn't even add up). If there is a team dumb enough for this, it certainly is the Skins. Don't forget: they will be trying to unload Haynesworth . That, plus a 4-3 Wannstedt coaching, who knows?

 

Conclusions:

Whoever we don't want at #3 had better be a certain game changer for the team that wants to trade with us to get him. Otherwise, the risk is simply not worth it for them. And, whose to say that they can't get a similar player at their spot?

-or-

The only teams that have enough value to move up are #s 4-10. I only have 9 and 10 in there because that's the Cowboys and Redskins, and both owners are fond of being "aggressive"(read: stupid). #9 and #10 require Mike Ditka/Ricky Williams buffoonery. There's no feasible trading partner beyond these...unless we are getting a good, proven veteran player as well.

-or-

This "Blaine Gabbert/Cam Newton is a top 10 pick" thing gets legs and causes massive stupidity.

 

In all cases, the other thing this analysis proves is: Buddy Nix has every reason to be purposely obtuse when speaking, to anyone. Win = an excellent misinformation campaign. Dangle Fairley/Peterson, but then say how you might take either. Talk about AJ Green and then talk about Lee Evans. Talk about trading Roscoe, then talk about trading Evans. Rinse. Repeat.

 

I think trading down is a pretty good idea, especially if we can get a quarterback along with a good left tackle (in the first round). Newton or Gabbert could be nice players but to take them at #3 is a risk. To get either one of them a little later in the round along with a left tackle would be an excellent first round IMO.

[muggins]

My point is if you are willing to accept less in a trade down (see Broncos 1st trade down in 2010) you can do it and if you are willing to overpay (see Broncos trade up for Tebow) you can do it. Everything in life has a price and football is no different.

Prove it - how many #3 overall picks did the Pats trade away?

 

How many #3 overall picks were traded for Tebow?

 

The fact remains - it is very very rare that any top 5 picks every get "Traded down". The only way it happens is for an impact player or a player who states he won't play for a team. Won't happen this year unless the Bills do something really dumb (see: Tebow, even for the pick they traded down to get him).

 

Regarding the chart, all I've ever heard is that it is followed religiously. If you have proof to the opposite, please present it. And please don't present proof that just shows how dumb a team is (see: Broncos).

[Thoner7]

Prove it - how many #3 overall picks did the Pats trade away?

 

How many #3 overall picks were traded for Tebow?

 

The fact remains - it is very very rare that any top 5 picks every get "Traded down". The only way it happens is for an impact player or a player who states he won't play for a team. Won't happen this year unless the Bills do something really dumb (see: Tebow, even for the pick they traded down to get him).

 

Regarding the chart, all I've ever heard is that it is followed religiously. If you have proof to the opposite, please present it. And please don't present proof that just shows how dumb a team is (see: Broncos).

 

I know it is rare to trade a pick, but I'll take my scenario to the extreme. The Bills are super desperate to trade their #3 overall for no explainable reason. They call the Pats who are picking 32nd, and Buddy gets on the line "Bill, we are desperate to trade back, you give us your 32nd overall pick and the 32nd pick in the 7th round and we will give you the 3rd overall pick"

 

My guess is the Patsies say "OK" and do that trade. Now I know thats a horrilbe trade, but it is possilbe to trade back, if you are willing to take less than the trade chart says you should. My point is that chart is stupid because the top picks are grossly over-valued IMO.

 

The chart is followed, which is why if we shopped our pick and took less than the chart said we should get, we could move around much more easliy. If we wanted to drop to the 12th pick and take Quinn/Clayborne/Carimi, and added the 12th pick in the 2nd, the chart says we lost 420 points which equates to the 16th pick in the 2nd.

 

So, we could entice a team to make that trade, by essentially GIVING them a 2nd rounder in percieved "value" of the trade. We get thier tangible 2nd rounder, they get the "value" of a second rounder.

 

I would love to do that trade even though the chart says I am getting screwed, because we need that extra 2nd. My guess is another team (like the Cowboys who pick at 9) would jump all over that trade thinking "WOW what a steal!!!"

Edited January 16, 2011 by Thoner7

[BillsfaninFl]

You are correct, we didn't have a trading partner the past 10 seasons to trade down with. Or are you?

This may be the case some of the time, but I would suspect it wasn't the case everytime.

The closest thing we've had to a top 5 pick is this seasons. I believe the 8th pick is the next closest.

 

 

Are you forgetting Mike Williams at number 4?

[muggins]

I know it is rare to trade a pick, but I'll take my scenario to the extreme. The Bills are super desperate to trade their #3 overall for no explainable reason. They call the Pats who are picking 32nd, and Buddy gets on the line "Bill, we are desperate to trade back, you give us your 32nd overall pick and the 32nd pick in the 7th round and we will give you the 3rd overall pick"

 

My guess is the Patsies say "OK" and do that trade. Now I know thats a horrilbe trade, but it is possilbe to trade back, if you are willing to take less than the trade chart says you should. My point is that chart is stupid because the top picks are grossly over-valued IMO.

 

The chart is followed, which is why if we shopped our pick and took less than the chart said we should get, we could move around much more easliy. If we wanted to drop to the 12th pick and take Quinn/Clayborne/Carimi, and added the 12th pick in the 2nd, the chart says we lost 420 points which equates to the 16th pick in the 2nd.

 

So, we could entice a team to make that trade, by essentially GIVING them a 2nd rounder in percieved "value" of the trade. We get thier tangible 2nd rounder, they get the "value" of a second rounder.

 

I would love to do that trade even though the chart says I am getting screwed, because we need that extra 2nd. My guess is another team (like the Cowboys who pick at 9) would jump all over that trade thinking "WOW what a steal!!!"

That is because it IS a steal, and we'd be making an extremely stupid trade.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Regarding the chart, all I've ever heard is that it is followed religiously. If you have proof to the opposite, please present it. And please don't present proof that just shows how dumb a team is (see: Broncos).

The chart is not followed religiously.

 

It is a starting point. The trade we made to move up and draft Paul Posluszny is an example. The Bills grossly overpaid in that one. I'm cooking breakfast so you'll have to look that one up yourself. But the Bills overpaid by quite a bit.

 

On a slightly different subject and not directed at you, the reason the trade chart has recently been deemed irrelevant by some is that it has failed to evolve with the compensation for top five draft picks and as a result, is not reflective of the reduced value of those picks (because many teams don't want to draft someone so high (EXPENSIVE).

 

However with the possibility of a rookie wage scale in the next CBA, the draft value chart may become more relevant again without having to be modified again.

 

 

 

 

[Thoner7]

That is because it IS a steal, and we'd be making an extremely stupid trade.

 

In your and the charts opinion its a stupid trade, in my opinion its a pretty darn good trade. Thats why I get mad at Buddy for not accepting a trade I would like, the same way I get mad at Buddy when they draft a player I dont like.

[spartacus]

That is because it IS a steal, and we'd be making an extremely stupid trade.

why is it a stupid trade ??

 

 

because the outdated trade chart says so?

 

for the last 10 years, the Bills have butchered their own top 12 first rounders so bad they have gotten no value from the pick, They have been incapable of turning those premium picks into impact playmakers- so what's the downside of trading down.

 

by trading down and getting additional picks, even though less than what the infamous trade chart says is good value, the Bills have a much better chance for success just by having more picks to blow. In addition, if the pick follows the Bills bust trend, the the budget won't be busted with top 5 salary and bonus money

 

 

[muggins]

why is it a stupid trade ??

 

 

because the outdated trade chart says so?

 

for the last 10 years, the Bills have butchered their own top 12 first rounders so bad they have gotten no value from the pick, They have been incapable of turning those premium picks into impact playmakers- so what's the downside of trading down.

 

by trading down and getting additional picks, even though less than what the infamous trade chart says is good value, the Bills have a much better chance for success just by having more picks to blow. In addition, if the pick follows the Bills bust trend, the the budget won't be busted with top 5 salary and bonus money

Yes, I understand trading down would be really great. I do. We'd get more picks and not have to pick a #3 overall that probably wouldn't be worth the value. I understand that. Every other team in the NFL (there are 31 other teams) understands that too.

 

It is a starting point. The trade we made to move up and draft Paul Posluszny is an example. The Bills grossly overpaid in that one. I'm cooking breakfast so you'll have to look that one up yourself. But the Bills overpaid by quite a bit.

Yeah, looks like they did. It was definitely not in the top 10 draft picks, though.

 

The last trade down in the top 10 was in 2009, Cleveland traded their #5 for a #17 and #52... the value they got out of that was awful, and NYJ got Sanchez and TB got Josh Freeman out of it.

[beast34]

I would try to trade down with Tennessee at 8. Our r1 #3 for their r1 #8, r2 #39, and either r3 #77 this year or a 2nd next year. With them moving VY they will be looking to draft a qb. Hopefully we would get Darius who falls to us at r1 #8.

[Thoner7]

The last trade down in the top 10 was in 2009, Cleveland traded their #5 for a #17 and #52... the value they got out of that was awful, and NYJ got Sanchez and TB got Josh Freeman out of it.

 

They also got 2-3 players IIRC.

 

If we could get 1 decent player, the 17th pick and the 52 pick, I would take that trade. We would then have 3 starters (assuming we had a real scouting staff at least) instead of just one (again assuming we had a real scouting staff.

 

That would be an extreme though, and I bet we could get something better, but still get a 1 and 2 from a team.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Thoner7

[Sabre Bill]

Will anyone trade anything if the CBA is still hanging out there - undone?

 

 

 

Assume the CBA is taken care of before draft day.

 

Doesn't a rookie pay scale change the value of the chart?

[muggins]

They also got 2-3 players IIRC.

 

If we could get 1 decent player, the 17th pick and the 52 pick, I would take that trade. We would then have 3 starters (assuming we had a real scouting staff at least) instead of just one (again assuming we had a real scouting staff.

 

That would be an extreme though, and I bet we could get something better, but still get a 1 and 2 from a team.

Did we even get one starter out of last year's draft? I think Moats played a lot, but didn't start.

 

And yeah, the Browns got a bunch of players. One is on the Broncos, one is in the UFL.

[BuffaloBillsMagic1]

We trade our 1st pick at 3 to Vikes at 12 and pick up their second rounder. They take the QB they need at 3, be it Camster or whoever.